ABSTRACTAbortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do nothave anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showingthat (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have thesame moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact thatboth are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3)adoption is not always in the best interest of actualpeople, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birthabortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in allthe cases where abortion is, including cases where thenewborn is not disabled.

CONCLUSIONSIf criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) forthe potential parents are good enough reasons for having anabortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status ofthe newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither hasany moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then thesame reasons which justify abortion should also justify thekilling of the potential person when it is at the stage ofa newborn.

It is an old ploy to keep floating an idea that, thereby, it may cease to appear so novel and extreme.

Thus does the outrageous gain plausibility and acceptance, by becoming almost tiresome by its very mention.

It slips in under the radar, a fifth column of ideas that are no longer foreign to our concepts of right and wrong simply because they have permeated our very consciousness and infected our moral outlook, a dark cancer in our soul.

But, really, can they be serious about this? It’s a sick joke… surely!

About Me

I am distraught and I despair that these events have befallen this family. The picture is of me and my lovely mum, murdered on the NHS (National-socialist Health Service). Murdered. Is that too strong a word? Her life was taken without her permission. By omission and by commission, actions taken and not taken conspired to end her life. She was kept in ignorance of what was proceeding before her very eyes, as were we. Was she, then, not murdered?